Last time I busted out the mug it was for Harry Reid's turn at Dick of the Week. I'll be brewing the STFU for whoever needs it, and that person need not be DOW. The first pour from the fresh pot goes to Chuck Schumer...
[link] Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.“There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
[...] In Friday’s speech, he said his “greatest regret” in the last Congress was not doing more to scuttle Alito.
[...]Schumer said there were four lessons to be learned from Alito and Roberts: Confirmation hearings are meaningless, a nominee’s record should be weighed more heavily than rhetoric, “ideology matters” and “take the president at his word.”
Hoodwinked? Please. You, me, Bush, Alito and everyone else knew exactly what was on the table here, what the President's "word" was worth, and what these confirmations meant—and you fucking pussies capitulated.
You got this part right:
“Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed,” Schumer said. “I should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didn’t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more.”
Yep. You did a shit job, and let the country down. but don't try and tell me you were "hoodwinked." That's crap.
13 comments:
Isn't "hoodwinked" a great word? Like they're all just the victims of some jaunty mischief? Next they'll say they were bamboozled.
Hah. And Schumer's one of the good ones...?
Word, Furious. Don't fucking play stupid. It's insulting.
This refusal to play hardball with the Republicans continues to be baffling. And the worst part is that they haven't learned anything as they continue to roll over and die on issues right now.
Don't fucking play stupid. It's insulting.
Exactly. Do I look like a 28-percenter-Republican to you, Chuck?
Off Topic: I'd never thought to ask this before, but you are the same "Mr. Furious" who used to post as Shakes' place, no?
Nope. Different guy. I was actually just thinking of him this morning because of Tart.
I've had this site for a little over three years, and went by Mr F at Kos for a while prior to that.
Picked up the nickname actually years earlier (based on the comic character, later played by Ben Stiller) when I worked in the comic industry in the early nineties. I was known as a hothead around the office (aka Angry Art Guy)...
Since that guy seemed to have falen off the face of the internet, without much of a trail, I like to think I can lay claim to the name.
This refusal to play hardball with the Republicans continues to be baffling.
Not at all. Business as usual works for all in the business.
* * *
Notwithstanding that "Anonymous" answered Toast's question, I always assumed that the two Mr. Furiouses were the same too.
but you are the same "Mr. Furious" who used to post as Shakes' place, no?
I wondered that for a while to, but then he started talking about his wife, and I know that Melissa's friend is gay. I actually went and looked up the post where she mentioned it at the time. Then the former Mr. Furious at Shakesville started posting as Todd. I can't find that as I think it's in the Shakesville archives. In that post he discussed his use of the moniker Mr. Furious and the reason he was dropping the nom de plume.
I'm sure Angelos would remember, he still frequents Shakesville quite a bit.
"Anonymous" was me, I was posting from Mrs. F's computer and didn't feel like logging her out and me in. Should've signed off to be clear.
I followed that up with several comments at Toast's without realizing I was signed in as Mrs Furious...
Not shining moments for Judiciary Committee Dems, to put it mildly.
I give Schumer some credit for not stonewalling while moving right along. Even so, that talk about how he should've arm-twisted some more Republicans in the last Congress — come on. He would've gotten as far as if he had tried to talk Bush out the surge in January.
On the war, on nominating judges, Bush held winning hands in the last Congress and still does in this one. It's hateful, but it's how it is.
Getting anywhere last time reguired tilting the Judiciary Committee majority, which simply wasn't going to happen. This time around, it calls for getting 60 votes or better, and that seems almost as unlikely.
Senate Republicans have figured out they can make Dems look impotent all over the place, giving Republicans an advantage in next year's election.
That means unbearable pressure will be applied to any Republican who appears willing to vote with Dems on anything.
That shouldn't excuse Democrats "going along to get along."
They should vote to oppose whenever it's the right thing to do. Even if it doesn't turn the tide. Make Bush veto, or override failure to consent...
If they don't have the numbers at least they can be making symbolic gestures. There should be no veil of "bipartisan" for any more of Bush's crap.
They should have filibustered on the SCOTUS appointments.
They should have filibustered on the SCOTUS appointments
But they don't want to!
I'll defer to Smitty and maybe S.W. here, but don't most major corporate political donators give more to the GOP than to the Dems? If the Dems show that they're actually opposed to those corporate interests, then they'll get even less.
I hate to seem so cynical, but the Dems are politicians. They understand power a lot better than any of us. This "they're just wimps" doesn't fly as a legitimate theory. I think, like the Administration and the resulting chaos and craziness of the Iraq War, the Dems have been getting exactly what they want to get the last year or so.
Talk about change will get a politician elected; actual change will get him back in the private sector pretty quickly.
Mr. F. wrote:
"They should vote to oppose whenever it's the right thing to do. Even if it doesn't turn the tide."
I agree, up to a point. The problem is that past that point Senate Democrats look like they're flailing. Foolishly, quixotically flailing.
Americans don't like it when people who are supposed to be leaders look like they're flailing. The public has turned on public officials for that and will again.
Where's the exact point where the principled stand and fighting the good fight becomes flailing? I don't think anyone knows, exactly.
But you can be sure of this: the entire right-wing noise machine would be only too happy to help hurry public opinion about Senate Democrats to that point as quickly as possible.
Post a Comment